October Term 2025 · Docket 24-813
Does Refining Wartime Gasoline for the Government Let a Company Move a Lawsuit to Federal Court?
Chevron USA says it acted for the federal government when it refined wartime gasoline, so it wants a Louisiana parish's lawsuit moved to federal court. Plaquemines Parish says the lawsuit targets ordinary business conduct and belongs in state court. The Supreme Court must decide how broadly the federal-officer removal statute reaches such cases.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Paul Clement argued for the companies that refining wartime gasoline under federal supervision was acting under a federal officer. And That Congress broadened the removal statute in 2011 by adding the words related to, which the Supreme Court has called substantially broad.
Mr. Aguñaga argued for the parish that the removal statute covers a civil action commenced against a person acting under a federal officer. And That the statutory text requires looking at the complaint that actually started the case.
Justice Sotomayor pressed the companies on how they define the required connection, saying their but-for approach could let cases fall apart, and asked about an employer's strike as an example.
Justice Thomas asked how the companies' argument would differ before 2011, and noted they admit their reading is a dramatic change to the removal statute.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 53-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 53-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 39-31 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 39-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 81, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 81, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 81, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 81, lines 49-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 89, lines 31-55 — Transcript, file page 89, lines 31-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-37
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Chevron USA and other oil companies refined gasoline for the war effort under federal supervision. Plaquemines Parish sued them in Louisiana state court over their conduct. The companies removed the case to federal court under a statute allowing removal of suits against people acting under a federal officer. The lower courts rejected that removal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 89, lines 31-55 — Transcript, file page 89, lines 31-55
How the case got here
The parish sued the companies in Louisiana state court. The companies removed the case to federal court, claiming they acted under a federal officer. The lower courts rejected that removal. The companies appealed, asking the Supreme Court to reverse and let the case proceed federally.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 33-39
What each side wants
Chevron USA and the other companies want the Supreme Court to let them move the parish's lawsuit to federal court. They argue that refining wartime gasoline under federal supervision was acting under a federal officer, and that the parish's claims connect to that conduct.
Plaquemines Parish wants the lawsuit kept in state court. It argues the removal statute covers suits against people acting under federal officers, and the complaint here targets ordinary business conduct, not federal activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 89, lines 31-55 — Transcript, file page 89, lines 31-55
What each side says
Paul Clement, for the companies, argued that Congress broadened the removal statute in 2011 by adding the words related to. Which the Supreme Court has called substantially broad, meaning connected to or associated with. He also argued the companies did not forfeit the argument in the Fifth Circuit; they stopped pressing it after losing there.
Mr. Aguñaga, for the parish, argued that the removal statute authorizes removal of a civil action commenced against a person acting under a federal officer. And That the statutory text requires looking at the complaint that actually started the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 89, lines 31-55 — Transcript, file page 89, lines 31-55
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor pressed the companies on how they define the required connection, saying their but-for approach could let cases fall apart, and asked about an employer's strike as an example.
Justice Thomas asked how the companies' argument would differ before 2011, and noted they admit their reading is a dramatic change to the removal statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 53-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 53-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 39-31 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 39-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 81, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 81, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 81, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 81, lines 49-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-37
Why it matters
The ruling will shape when businesses sued in state court can invoke federal-officer removal based on work they performed for the government. It will also clarify how far the 2011 addition of the words related to extends that removal path.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 89, lines 31-55 — Transcript, file page 89, lines 31-55
What the Court decided
Chevron's wartime oil production is closely enough connected to its federal avgas-refining duties to satisfy the removal statute's relating to requirement, so removal was proper.
The Fifth Circuit's judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 3, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 3, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 4, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 4, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 89, lines 31-55 — Transcript, file page 89, lines 31-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 89, lines 31-55 — Transcript, file page 89, lines 31-55
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 4 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.